or self-medicated on heroin. (Or was it opium?) I'm never quite sure. Perhaps then I could alleviate the raging boredom. You know, like Sherlock Holmes. He of the notoriously low boredom threshold. Or maybe somewhere in the wide world of paintball SOMETHING INTERESTING COULD HAPPEN. It was so bad earlier I started reading the postings on Facebook. And I thought I was bored ...
Did you notice the recent PSP announcement (there never seems to be an off season when it comes to cluttering up my emailbox) that the new AES tourney series was a PSP affiliate series? (I deleted the first one too.) Seems they will be running 2 conferences with the northern conference in a region of the Midwest more or less overlapping that of the Vicious Series. And that the Vicious Series will be switching to a Millennium style of Race 2 (with 2 matches proceeding on the same field simultaneously or thereabouts.) Does that mean the Vicious Series is no longer a PSP affiliate? Oh and it's vaguely ironic that GP (& the Fergs) [formerly of DSS & Vicious] is headlining the AES series of events.
A query arrived in the mailbag recently wondering what I thought of the idea of trying to organize larger scale combination paintball events. Something like a Big Game and tournament to occur over the same weekend at the same venue--perhaps as the coordinated effort of multiple promoters. Part of the notion being that some of the logistical expenses overlap, some of the players interest may also overlap and the whole thing would have greater appeal to industry sponsors and supporters. What do you think? And while you're thinking take a moment to post those thoughts in the comments. (For those of you who weren't sure what to do with your thoughts.)
Periodically VFTD will receive requests for guidance or assistance from teams and players at different levels of competition that go well beyond the specific questions I'm (usually) happy to respond to in Baca's Mailbag. In the past I have tried to offer what is hopefully some helpful advice and encouragement but recently the numbers of this sort of request have been growing and as a practical matter I simply don't have the time to respond to each one individually. The language barrier has also become a more frequent issue as many of these requests come from all corners of the globe. For those who have lately received something of a stock reply, my apologies. And for those who are relatively new to VFTD there are quite a lot of posts in the archives covering practice routines, drills and the like. The search function isn't great but will help sort things out. As always I'm happy to respond to specific questions whether they become a mailbag post or not.
Showing posts with label regional paintball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regional paintball. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Thursday, September 9, 2010
What is Tournament Paintball? part 3
It is evident now that competitive paintball is where the drive and desire to move tournament paintball into the realm of sport has taken us. It is what it is and it was inevitable. Competitive paintball will continue to develop. If the vehicle hadn't been xball it would have been something else. It is also evident that the current difficulties are the result of a number of factors some of which have nothing to do with playing the game. There will be no one stop easy fixes. Most of us have no way to affect the outcome regardless. But there may be some things that can be done in the present to help build a more sustainable and broader tournament base.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?
(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?
Let's review: At present competitive paintball is too expensive for its target demographic and simultaneously (and unnecessarily) restricts the opportunities of a significant number of the most dedicated players.
What to do? We broaden the definition of tournament paintball in order to legitimize a wider variety of tournament options. (Sure, this already happens as a practical matter but only in a piecemeal haphazard way.) Lower costs for competitive paintball. Lower the bar to tournament play with alternatives to competitive paintball. Slow down the "career" track and also offer options that don't involve a "career" track. Reconnect with the disenfranchised players.(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.
This is hardly a conclusive post but it's a start. There's so much more to all this that hopefully I've made a dent. Regardless, I have no doubt it's a topic that will be revisited again and again.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Broken Record
If you've been hanging around the VFTD watercooler long enough this post will seem like deja vu. (Come to think of it VFTD's second birthday was a few days ago.) During that first July I spent a lot of time on the "lost" D1 players and I've replayed that record since then, too. A couple of things in the last week reminded me that, despite changes, not much has changed.
In prior posts I tied the lost players to the misguided classification rules. Those rules were changed--for the better--and yet, lost players is still an issue. Players from a well known high profile Florida team that fell apart recently (and unexpectedly) are trying to put the pieces back together. Part of their motivation, besides a desire to compete, is the realization that if they can't compete at the major league level they can't compete at all. At least not in Florida. Of course money is an issue too, always has been and always will be and the current state of the economy is affecting a lot more players than just the players caught in the classification pinch. This is also the first year of the PSP's affiliates rollout and while progress has been, and is being made, it isn't all sunshine and lollipops. And some of the grey clouds attached to the silver lining continue to be classification related issues. Those aren't so much wrongly classified players but the recurring tensions that occur as all leagues feel the pinch and the need to do everything they can to accommodate as many customers as possible. [Sports have players but paintball leagues need customers and the two categories don't always line up evenly.]
There's the rub as it applies to lost players. It's a helluva time to try and sort a fully realized, vertically integrated sport out of tournament paintball. I don't know any proponent of competitive paintball who doesn't want this to happen--or something quite like it--and if this effort had coincided with the good times I think it would be an established reality today but that's not where we are. The higher ranked the player becomes the fewer the options that exist for competition. Those options often include higher costs along with a more fully developed and complex organization in order to be competitive. At the other end of the spectrum the affiliates are torn between upward player movement pressure, enforcing classifications and the lack of competing upper divisional teams in a process that frequently breaks up existing teams.
The sport demands a legit classification system. The leagues need players. The timing is brutal but it is what it is. Competitive paintball needs to keep as many of its adherents actively involved as possible. But how?
Tomorrow, a couple of new ideas.
In prior posts I tied the lost players to the misguided classification rules. Those rules were changed--for the better--and yet, lost players is still an issue. Players from a well known high profile Florida team that fell apart recently (and unexpectedly) are trying to put the pieces back together. Part of their motivation, besides a desire to compete, is the realization that if they can't compete at the major league level they can't compete at all. At least not in Florida. Of course money is an issue too, always has been and always will be and the current state of the economy is affecting a lot more players than just the players caught in the classification pinch. This is also the first year of the PSP's affiliates rollout and while progress has been, and is being made, it isn't all sunshine and lollipops. And some of the grey clouds attached to the silver lining continue to be classification related issues. Those aren't so much wrongly classified players but the recurring tensions that occur as all leagues feel the pinch and the need to do everything they can to accommodate as many customers as possible. [Sports have players but paintball leagues need customers and the two categories don't always line up evenly.]
There's the rub as it applies to lost players. It's a helluva time to try and sort a fully realized, vertically integrated sport out of tournament paintball. I don't know any proponent of competitive paintball who doesn't want this to happen--or something quite like it--and if this effort had coincided with the good times I think it would be an established reality today but that's not where we are. The higher ranked the player becomes the fewer the options that exist for competition. Those options often include higher costs along with a more fully developed and complex organization in order to be competitive. At the other end of the spectrum the affiliates are torn between upward player movement pressure, enforcing classifications and the lack of competing upper divisional teams in a process that frequently breaks up existing teams.
The sport demands a legit classification system. The leagues need players. The timing is brutal but it is what it is. Competitive paintball needs to keep as many of its adherents actively involved as possible. But how?
Tomorrow, a couple of new ideas.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The AXB What?
VFTD was going to post the first Pro*file today but (as per usual) I've been distracted by the sudden exit of the AXBL a week (or so) after they released their 2010 schedule (and the usual suspects began complaining about this and that--but, of course, that's paintball.) [Team numbers appear to have been on the decline for whatever that's worth and there was a petulant quality to their au revoir. On the other hand I hear the AXBL didn't really make much of a profit and, as seems to be the case these days, it all breaks down to the cash to be had, or not, in paint. Go figure.] Anyway, I am not here to praise or bury the AXBL, it had some laudable qualities and some parochial qualities and in some respects I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did.
Let's talk xball--and I'm not talking 'bout that format-formerly-known-as-xball for pansies either. Last bastion of "real" xball, that's what the AXBL was. (Yeah, I know they still play it in the CXBL but that's Canada so it doesn't really count.) Of course it wasn't exactly the same as "real" xball. The rules were a bit different and they played with a ROF limit. Everybody knows "real" xball was "real" semi-auto. Trust me, I'm the ultimate fan of true xball and I would love to see it make a come back. And who knows? Maybe one day it will. In the meantime I'm not sure if 7 or 8 "real" xball matches a season is worth it. The NXL tried that too--we played a few more matches too--but it's just more fun to win events on the way to World Cup.I'm also a fan of local and regional tourney ball as the appropriate developmental scene for competitive paintball and the AXBL seemed to do that pretty well. And it was clever to take advantage of the Canada/America thing to have a season ending league championship in each league and then a North American slugfest. As a result a regional league played bigger than it was and promoted a certain pride of competition. But wouldn't it be better if it really was a North American championship? Or even bigger than that? If an opportunity existed to compete at a local or regional level during the year in order to earn a spot in a real championship that included the top regional teams in identical leagues from around the country and beyond?
That's the hope and promise of the new alignment between a number of regional leagues and the PSP. Okay, so maybe it isn't "real" xball. It's still pretty damn good. And a season of competition has a lot of winners and losers on the road to a local title and, who knows, a real honest-to-goodness championship that proves who the best divisional teams really are.
The AXBL will be missed but bigger and better is in sight. But it ain't all cookies and milk. Fact is there probably won't be a place for everybody. Oh, not teams and players--I mean promoters and local leagues. Making the move the PSP and the affiliated regionals have undertaken has risks but if it succeeds it will marginalize all the other grassroots series and events. Why play local without the opportunity to prove yourself on a national scale when it's readily available to anyone with the desire to be their best? Fingers crossed. It could be a bumpy ride.
UPDATE: Looking for an immediate alternative to the AXBL? Check out the NYPL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
